18. Because the best way to stop them is to MOCK what they're about to say before they say it.

As I mentioned below, we have only four tools available to us:

1. Mock their talking points, and make them look ridiculous, before they even have a chance to utter them.
2. Take back control of the language by calling for "gun safety laws" rather than "gun control laws" or "gun regulations."
3. Expose the tricks that they are about to attempt. The biggest one being to call for a VOLUNTARY ban on these weapons by the gun industry. By avoiding legislation, the gun makers will be able to lift their voluntary ban a year from now when everybody has forgotten about this.
4. WARN any Democratic politicians who would EMBRACE the trick (point 3) knowing full well that it's a trick. I can envision more than a few Blue Dog Democrats supporting a voluntary moratorium on the manufacture of assault weapons by the gun lobby, knowing full well that they're just going to lift it later, and resume selling these damned things.

31. I'm sure that is what you believe is happening here

2. I chatted with an avid gun supporter and their response to the shooting

If only the principal was packing.

My thoughts - yeah that would be good, we'd end up with some wild west shootout.

I know that most gun owners have some understanding of how to use their guns. But when the adrenaline is rushing and you're making a last minute 'what do I do' response - the desired outcome might not actually happen.

So, instead of the principle packing as well, how about just taking those weapons out of the equation all together? Why is the answer to arm others? Which is really better? Have both persons armed, or have both persons disarmed? Furthermore, what is your answer going to be when one principal, now "armed" as per your desire accidentally leaves their arm where a student gets a hold of it and kills class mates? In 2009-2010 there were 98,817 registered public schools (not even counting the private). That's relying on 98,817 persons to be your idyllic responsible gun owner. What will your answer be when an angry parent attacks a principal, takes the gun and uses it on the principal or others? Will you THEN be willing to ban these machines that are only good for killing?

I've reached my breaking point of accepting 250 year old constitutional doctrine on this issue. We're not talking muskets on a homestead anymore. If you want your 2nd amendment, as written, and as intended, then move out of my city, or any city in civilization. Carve yourself out a chunk of homestead.. and then you can have your cherished fucking musket."

33. Hello, and thank you :)

I've been on DU for years, only occaisonally post. Most of the time I come here to gather information for "ammo" to use against conservatives on political battleground chatboards (ones that are politically themed, but aren't primarily Democrat or Republican).

When I do post, it's usually when some element of a thread really strikes me.

The NRA has known all along that there will eventually be one massacre too many, and the "the solution is MORE GUNS" bullshit will have gotten so stale that they can't use it anymore.

The next phase of their plan will be to call on the gun manufacturers to impose a VOLUNTARY ban on the production of these weapons. That way they can lift their own self imposed ban a year from now when everybody has forgotten about this.

WE HAVE TO EXPOSE THAT TRICK, BEFORE IT EVER GETS OFF THE GROUND, by TALKING ABOUT IT. So that when they actually try to make it fly, it will already have been exposed as a trick.

23. whatcha bet it involves scapegoating the mentally ill

25. A good number of conservatives already have done that

Various conservative people I have seen have settled on blaming the ACLU for defending the rights of citizens against a state bill that would enable the government of the area to, in the words of the news service where I saw it:

Had the AOT bill been passed, it would have given the state the right to institutionalize a person who is mentally ill for treatment if the state has enough evidence to believe that the person could be a danger to himself or the community.

It's ironic how their "Small government principles" fly out the window when a chance to blame civil liberties organizations exists, or to conduct damage control on their gun position.

26. That is already the situation in most states

That someone can be put in a psych ward if determined they are a threat to themselves or others. It is generally for short periods of time, from three to seven days. The laws vary someone by state. Generally the issue is suicide, not harm to others. If someone does hurt another person, they wind up in the criminal justice system.

Naturally the right will scapegoat, just like gun proponents on DU do. It's a distraction to keep people from doing anything about the real cause--gun proliferation.